Case 1: Paulo and I go to a clerk's desk for a marriage license. They go down a list of conditions that must apply if a license is to be issued. They issue the license if all of those conditions are met, and refuse it otherwise.
Case 2: Paulo and I go to a clerk's desk for a marriage license. They go down a list of conditions that cannot apply if a license to be issued. They issue the license if none of those conditions are met, and refuse it otherwise.
Case 3: Paulo and I get married, and go to the clerk's desk to register our marriage. They go down a list of conditions that cannot apply if a marriage is to be registered. They register the marriage if none of those conditions are met, and refuse it otherwise.
Case 4: Paulo and I get married, and go to the clerk's desk to register our marriage. They go down a list of conditions that must apply if a marriage is to be registered. They register the marriage if all of those conditions are met, and refuse it otherwise.
It seems to me that cases 1 and 2 involve licensing marriage, while cases 3 and 4 involve registering marriage, which is what I understood you as initially talking about.
It seems to me that cases 1 and 4 involve "anything not permitted is forbidden," while cases 2 and 3 involve "anything not forbidden is permitted."
So it kind of seems to me that you just changed the subject.
But, regardless: with respect to licensing (1 and 2) vs registering (3 and 4), my uncertainty remains the same as earlier... I don't really see what this helps. The same judgments are being made, they're just being made after the fact.
With respect to default-forbidden (1 and 4) vs default-permitted (2 and 3), I see how this helps marriage... we do less input-testing, so more marriages get through. Awesome, I guess.
My problem with this, as I wrote back in June, is that there's this whole body of additional law that governs how we interact with married people. If we agree to reduce our input-testing of marriages, we have to be prepared for a much higher level of unexpected results as those additional laws start interacting with the marriages that get through.
(I would have a similar concern with names if there were a lot of laws that said things like "people with names starting with consonants get treated this way, people with names starting with vowels get treated that way" and I just registered a birth certificate for little baby 441231.)
And, hey, that's fine, if that's what we want to do. Let's deal with those exceptions, either by front-loading (amending the relevant laws now based on general principles) or back-loading (waiting until confusing cases come up, judging those cases on their individual merits, and building up a system of precedents). I have a preference for front-loading, but they both work.
I just don't want us to adopt 2/3 and then be surprised when the system starts throwing exceptions downstream.
no subject
Consider the following cases:
Case 1: Paulo and I go to a clerk's desk for a marriage license. They go down a list of conditions that must apply if a license is to be issued. They issue the license if all of those conditions are met, and refuse it otherwise.
Case 2: Paulo and I go to a clerk's desk for a marriage license. They go down a list of conditions that cannot apply if a license to be issued. They issue the license if none of those conditions are met, and refuse it otherwise.
Case 3: Paulo and I get married, and go to the clerk's desk to register our marriage. They go down a list of conditions that cannot apply if a marriage is to be registered. They register the marriage if none of those conditions are met, and refuse it otherwise.
Case 4: Paulo and I get married, and go to the clerk's desk to register our marriage. They go down a list of conditions that must apply if a marriage is to be registered. They register the marriage if all of those conditions are met, and refuse it otherwise.
It seems to me that cases 1 and 2 involve licensing marriage, while cases 3 and 4 involve registering marriage, which is what I understood you as initially talking about.
It seems to me that cases 1 and 4 involve "anything not permitted is forbidden," while cases 2 and 3 involve "anything not forbidden is permitted."
So it kind of seems to me that you just changed the subject.
But, regardless: with respect to licensing (1 and 2) vs registering (3 and 4), my uncertainty remains the same as earlier... I don't really see what this helps. The same judgments are being made, they're just being made after the fact.
With respect to default-forbidden (1 and 4) vs default-permitted (2 and 3), I see how this helps marriage... we do less input-testing, so more marriages get through. Awesome, I guess.
My problem with this, as I wrote back in June, is that there's this whole body of additional law that governs how we interact with married people. If we agree to reduce our input-testing of marriages, we have to be prepared for a much higher level of unexpected results as those additional laws start interacting with the marriages that get through.
(I would have a similar concern with names if there were a lot of laws that said things like "people with names starting with consonants get treated this way, people with names starting with vowels get treated that way" and I just registered a birth certificate for little baby 441231.)
And, hey, that's fine, if that's what we want to do. Let's deal with those exceptions, either by front-loading (amending the relevant laws now based on general principles) or back-loading (waiting until confusing cases come up, judging those cases on their individual merits, and building up a system of precedents). I have a preference for front-loading, but they both work.
I just don't want us to adopt 2/3 and then be surprised when the system starts throwing exceptions downstream.